Subject: Re: [vhdl-200x] CFA: Priorities
From: Evan Lavelle (eml@riverside-machines.com)
Date: Tue Mar 11 2003 - 01:35:53 PST
Steve - I see that you've got 'Assertions' as No.8 on the list, with 7
votes, and 'Apply Accellera assertions' as No.27, with only 3 votes. I
personally voted for 'temporal assertions', and this has actually
appeared as a vote for general assertions, ie. 8 rather than 27. This is
presumably because you wrote on March 1st:
> Finally, I want to point out that I categorized all "temporal assertions"
> priorities as a priority for the general Assertion category. The reason being
> that VHDL already has combinatorial (or monotonic) assertions. If anyone feels
> that I have wrongly jumped to this conclusion on their behalf, please let me
> know.
I think there may be some disagreement on the classification of
'temporal assertions'. I personally use the phrase to mean the ability
to define temporal relationships between specific boolean conditions,
and the ability to test the truth or otherwise of those relationships.
This is what Sugar and temporal-e do, so it seems to me that a vote for
'temporal assertions' is actually a vote to add the functionality of
Sugar (ie. 'Apply Accellera assertions'), temporal-e, or something
similar to VHDL.
This is an important distinction because No.27 - adding Sugar to the
language - is going to be such a vast amount of work that having only 3
votes could kill it. However, is it actually the case that it
effectively got 10 votes, which would put it pretty much at the top of
the priority list? Would anyone else who voted for 'assertions'
(Moretti, Lewis, Bailey, Hsu, Martinolle, Anderson) like to comment?
Evan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Mar 11 2003 - 01:40:27 PST